1. P RE - SERVICE T EACHER E DUCATION : IMPACT OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ON PUPIL MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY E XPLORING P RE - SERVICE T EACHER E DUCATION : IMPACT OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ON PUPIL MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE Mary E. Yakimowski and Mary Truxaw Presentation at the annual meeting for the Northeastern Educational Research Association Rocky Hill, Connecticut October 2011

2. Linking to Other Presentations Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Rhode Island Massachusetts Connecticut Perspectives “Facts” Private Schools Public Schools

3. A Great Education Begins with Great Teachers Teachers for a New Era (TNE) - An initiative designed to improve teacher quality by reforming outstanding teacher preparation programs

4. Design Principles 1.Emphasize to preservice teachers the importance of demonstrating student achievement through evidence. 2.Fully integrate faculty from the liberal arts and sciences, enriching future teachers' general and subject matter knowledge. 3. Support will be extended to beginning teachers from their individual colleges and universities.

5. Focus on how the UConn Neag School of Education is examining K-12 performance More specifically, we would like to examine the patterns of Connecticut’s grade 3-8 pupils of graduates of our Teaching Education Program as part of our Neag Assessment Plan through our Teachers for a New Era project

6. Literature Review  Teachers have been found to be critically important in students’ mathematical learning and performance (Ball, 2003; Ball, Lubienski & Mewborn, 2001; Fennema & Franke,1992; Shulman, 1987)  There are significant interests in examining growth achievement models (e.g., Barone, 2009) High-quality teacher education programs take on an important role (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006) Lack of empirical evidence connecting teacher education programs with student outcomes (Crowe, 2010; Grossman, 2008)

7. Purpose of This Study  Examine the impact of teacher education experiences at higher education levels on pupil performance in mathematics.  Differences on pupil performance in mathematics between UI group vs. Non-UI group

8. Sampling  5 public school districts in Connecticut  12,047 students from grades 3 through 8 Instrumentation The fourth generation of Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT-4) mathematics portion Grades 3 through 8 in the spring at each year

9. 5 domains and 25 corresponding strands in CMT-4 math test are tested: Numerical and Proportional Reasoning Geometry and Measurement Working with Data: Probability and Statistics Algebraic Reasoning: patterns and functions Integrated Understanding

10. __________________________________________________________________________ Numerical and Proportional [NP] 1. Place Value 2. Pictorial Representations of Numbers 3. Equivalent Fractions, Decimals and Percents 4. Order, Magnitude and Rounding of Numbers 5. Models for Operations 6. Basic Facts 7. Computation with Whole Numbers and Decimals 8. Computation with Fractions and Integers 9. Solve Word Problems 10. Numerical Estimation Strategies 11. Estimating Solutions to Problems 12. Ratios and Proportions 13. Computation with Percents Geometry and Measurement [GM] 14. Time 15. Approximating Measures 16. Customary and Metric Measures 17. Geometric Shapes and Properties 18. Spatial Relationships Working with Data: Probability and Statistics [DPS] 19. Tables, Graphs and Charts 20. Statistics and Data Analysis 21. Probability 24. Classification and Logical Reasoning Algebraic Reasoning: Patterns and Functions [AR] 22. Patterns 23. Algebraic Concepts Integrated Understanding [IU] (May include content from one or more of the four domains) 25. Mathematical Applications __________________________________________________________________________

11. Specifically, our objectives are to: 1. Measure the impact of teacher education experiences in higher education on pupil performance in mathematics. 2.Interpret the findings and provide recommendations for a modified model to evaluate teacher preparation programs in higher education institutions.

12. Overview of Results  Total (Raw) Score  Domain Scores  Strand Scores  Proficiency Level Scores  Vertical Scale Scores

13. Research QuestionScoresTypeOther Overall mathematics achievement for pupils educated by UI alumni? Is it any different from pupils of alumni from other institutions? Overall raw score Descriptive, t-test 1 year Five mathematics domains scores for pupils educated by UI alumni? Is performance in the domains for these pupils any different from pupils of alumni from other institutions? 5 domain scores Descriptive, t-test 1 year 25 mathematics strand scores of pupils of UI alumni? Is this performance any different from pupils of alumni from other institutions? 25 strands Descriptive, t-test 1 year Pattern in pupil proficiency status for those educated by UI alumni? Is the performance any different from pupils of alumni from other institutions? Proficie ncy level Proportion analysis 1 year Overall pupil mathematics achievement for those educated by UI alumni after controlling for initial difference on earlier achievement? Is it any different from pupils of alumni from other institutions? Vertical scale ANCOVA Covariate: last year’s results

14. Overall score UI was 106 (SD = 22.8) Non-UI of 95.3 (SD = 26.8)

15. Domain 1 – Numerical / Proportional UI 53.3 Non-UI 46.4 similar results for each domain

16. Domain 1 - Strand Score Results

18. CMT-4 Geometry and Measurement [GM] domain’s five strand scores for two teacher groups. Domain 2 - Strand Score Results

19. Research QuestionScoresResults 1What is the overall pupil mathematics achievement educated by UI alumni? Is it any different from alumni from other institutions? Overall raw score UI score (106.1) > Non-UI score (95.3); statistically significant 2What are the five mathematics domains scores educated by UI alumni? Is the pupil performance any different from alumni from other institutions? 5 domain scores UI Domain scores > Non-UI Domain scores; statistically significant; e.g., for Domain1, UI score (53.3) > Non-UI score (46.4); statistically significant 3What are the 25 mathematics strand scores from UI alumni? Is the pupil performance any different from alumni from other institutions? 25 strandsUI Strand scores > Non-UI Strand scores; statistically significant; e.g., for Strand 9, UI score (5.6) > Non-UI score (4.6); statistically significant 4What is the pattern in pupil proficiency status by those educated by UI alumni? Is the pupil performance any different from alumni from other institutions? Proficiency level 76% of UI and 60% of Non-UI in the Goal and Advanced categories; 9% of UI and 20% of Non-UI in the Below Basic and Basic categories 5What is the overall pupil mathematics achievement educated by UI alumni after controlling for initial difference on earlier achievement? Is it any different from alumni from other institutions? Verti cal scale UI score (536.7) > Non-UI score (525.6); statistically significant after controlling for initial difference on earlier achievement Overview of Findings to Each Research Qs

20. Proficiency Level Non-UIUI Level% Below Basic 9.1 4.2 Basic10.7 4.4 Proficient20.415.4 Goal32.636.2 Advanced27.239.8

21. Groups n Unadjusted 2007-2008 Unadjusted 2008-2009 Adjusted 2008-2009 Non-UI 9072 513.0 541.3542.6 UI 816 534.2 564.2549.1 Fp Between-Subjects Effects Intercept 3914.30.001*** MAVS2007-2008 32283.60.001*** Teacher Group 36.6 0.001*** Vertical Scale Results

22. Discussion  Two groups  Limitations  Modified  Impact of programs  Future Research

23. As noted by Education Secretary Duncan … at an annual meeting of the American Association of College of Teacher Education in February of 2010 in Atlanta, saying, “To put it in the simplest terms, we believe teacher-preparation programs should be focused on results.” Aligned with charge, we do contend that we must continue to strive to build an evidence-based teacher preparation model, which is directly linked to pupil academic performance; however, it is simply one piece as a puzzle to really evaluate a teacher education program.

24. HTTP://WWW.EDUCATION.UCONN.EDU/ASSESSMENT/

25. E XPLORING P RE - SERVICE T EACHER E DUCATION : IMPACT OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ON PUPIL MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE Mary Truxaw and Mary E. Yakimowski